[NBA] Offseason Talk

[kcxiv]

Originally Posted by woqqqa

Speaking of which, any idea why LA is supposedly so high on Bynum? I've seen him play, and I see nothing special. Not that he couldn't end up being pretty good in the future, but I wonder what they're basing their opinion on. And why a fair number of people seem to think they could get a decent player in return for him at this stage in his career.

I seen about 40-45 Laker games this passed year, and Bynum has the ability to be a great player. I just dont think he has the mentality to get there. I would have traded him for Kidd in a heartbeat. Kid has a few more years left and could have put the Lakers into a pretty damn good team.

I Honestly dont know wtf Buss is thinking these days. Lakers could have been something special, but he blew the whole team up. I just dont see why he did this. Also, Mike Kupchik is a fucking retard. THey need a new GM like yesterday.

[Ham n Cheese]

to the Wizards for Arenas and one of their overpaid F/C is the only way I see them getting a superstar. Then again if the Suns are trying to unload Marion I don't see how Raja Bell + Marion for Kobe couldn't work (or Garnett). There's no way Garnett (or Kobe for that matter) is worth losing Stoudemire AND Marion. Marion is so underrated I don't understand it really, maybe he's a product of Nash but he was 20/10 before Nash was there also.

What about Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for Kobe and Kwame? Then the Lakers could ship one of them to Charlotte (since I hear they're the likely destination for Lewis). It's too bad McGrady + others for Kobe won't happen, I'd love to watch Kobe.

Or if Garnett wants out and Kobe wants out why not a Kobe for Garnett + expiring contracts/draft pick. I doubt Minnesota wants to give up Foye in the deal, but it's not like they'll need another scorer.

I don't know how the Knicks have any chance of getting that deal to happen. I wouldn't want a single player off their team besides maybe Curry or their young guys as ROLE PLAYERS (frye/lee). If Isiah pulls that off and doesn't give up Curry in it I will praise him. Because if I was the Lakers GM you could offer me Starbury, Crawford and Curry and I'd still say no.

[cdyhybrid]

The Lakers need a superstar in return because their ticket prices are absolutely ridiculous. If they want to keep charging those prices they need someone who can fill seats like Kobe.

Also, Robert Horry apparently said the 07 Spurs could beat any team from the 70's or 80's (they're talking about it on Mike and Mike). El oh el. I'd give him most of the teams from back then, but Magic's Lakers or Bird's Celtics? Seriously?

[Ham n Cheese]

God we go through this everytime a team with all boring players wins a title. They try to do this shit with the Pistons and Patriots too, it's so fucking annoying.

And no 4 championships in 9 years isn't a Dynasty

[Blumpster]

Well what is? Of course the Celtics in the 60's, and the bulls in the 90's. No argument there. What about Magic and the Lakers? They have 5 in 12, but they were also in all but 3 of the Finals for those 12 years. I'd say that qualifies them. What about Bird and the Celtics? Five finals appearances, 3 wins, 13 seasons. Not so sure here. Kobe/Shaq lakers? 3 in a row? 4 appearances? If they'd had stayed together, and won a few more championships (guaranteed), yah, dynasty, but no. Spurs? 4 appearances, 4 wins, in 9 years. No repeats. Not the epitome of consistency, but then again they are averaging 70% win percentage in the regular season since 99, and with TP blowing up I don't see them stopping. If they win next year, yea, dynasty, but right now they're right on the edge. I think they need a repeat for it to be unanimous.

[cdyhybrid]

Any dynasty needs to include at least one repeat in addition to many other titles. If the Spurs win next year they are a dynasty.

[Urlithani]

In addition to not winning back to back titles, would it make any sense to include that there isn't really any competition out there for the Spurs? Back during Bird, Magic and Jordan's era, it seems to me that there were many more competitive teams compared to today. Now, I'm no NBA historian, so I could totally be wrong, but I couldn't call them a dynasty when I feel like the rest of the league is just laying down in their mediocrity and letting them walk away with trophies.

[Akileese]

That's what bugs me about the West. It's obvious the Spurs, Suns, Mavs are the only teams that can win a title, but with the Mavs knocked out, it guaranteed that the Spurs would win since no one else could match up with them remotely well. The NBA needs a bit of a shakeup.

[woqqqa]

Originally Posted by Akileese

That's what bugs me about the West. It's obvious the Spurs, Suns, Mavs are the only teams that can win a title, but with the Mavs knocked out, it guaranteed that the Spurs would win since no one else could match up with them remotely well. The NBA needs a bit of a shakeup.

Agreed. I suggest we have Tim Duncan put down. That'll even the odds a bit.

[Ham n Cheese]

ESPN Page 2 - The Sports Guy: Logic and the lottery

Pretty entertaining article. Funniest part is the last line about the Clippers haha. Anyway I like where this guys head is, but he's right... it's the No Balls Association

[Moontayle]

That's a fairly cynical way of looking at it, but I happen to agree.

[Akileese]

Originally Posted by Ham n Cheese

ESPN Page 2 - The Sports Guy: Logic and the lottery

Pretty entertaining article. Funniest part is the last line about the Clippers haha. Anyway I like where this guys head is, but he's right... it's the No Balls Association

Dude, as an avid Simmons reader, he's been saying this ALL winter about the NBA. No one has the guts to do anything. His best point about the trade deadline.

"Every team felt they were in a good position to win. Really? No one felt they needed to make a trade to improve themselves?"

Best examples was the Bulls who had like, 3 or 4 expiring contracts and they all did just that. They didn't use ONE of them in a trade. Astonishing.

Edit: What Simmons said about Portland is exactly what my buddies who are Blazer fans have been saying.

Here's what I don't get: The Blazers already have two quality inside players (Zach Randolph and LaMarcus Aldridge), which means they'll eventually trade Randolph for 60 cents on an already diluted dollar. Yeah, he's a loon, but he's a superb low-post scorer who would thrive with Durant spacing the floor for him. So why not explore trading down if Seattle is enamored with Oden? They could just trade the No. 1 and Darius Miles' craptastic contract (expires in 2011) for Rashard Lewis (sign and trade) and the No. 2, then play Brandon Roy, Lewis, Durant and Randolph at the same time (with Aldridge coming off the bench). Tell me, who's double-teaming Randolph with Lewis, Durant and Roy out there? Don't they have to explore that one? Do we need to dial the phone for Kevin Pritchard?

[Burkex]

I would like to see the Celtics get Kobe, by trading Paul Pierce and some other chumps. Then draft a good player with their pick and pick up a good free agent or 2.

Celtics really got screwed in the Lottery again. They needed the 1st pick. Then they could have a sweet center and trade away their team for Kobe and have the sickest 2 man inside-outside team, like the lakers when they had Kobe + Shaq.

I don't wanna see the Bulls or especially the Knicks get Kobe.

[Akileese]

If the Celtics are smart, they'll draft well and stand pat. Wait until February and use some of their expiring contracts for a solid veteran guy.

After reading Simmons' column and sitting on the rumor for a day or two, yeah, he's right. They shouldn't trade for Garnett because it's much smarter to keep Jefferson at a much lower price tag and more years.

The Celtics are not going to win a championship with the Garnett trade. They'd be stupid to make this trade if you're not gonna win a championship. You'd win the East with that team, but a over 40 night league team has a legitimate chance of winning the East.

[sticktastic]

Originally Posted by Akileese

If the Celtics are smart, they'll draft well and stand pat. Wait until February and use some of their expiring contracts for a solid veteran guy.

After reading Simmons' column and sitting on the rumor for a day or two, yeah, he's right. They shouldn't trade for Garnett because it's much smarter to keep Jefferson at a much lower price tag and more years.

The Celtics are not going to win a championship with the Garnett trade. They'd be stupid to make this trade if you're not gonna win a championship. You'd win the East with that team, but a over 40 night league team has a legitimate chance of winning the East.

On this note, I just read that garnett has said through his agent he will not be going to boston, and that the celtics are not a team he would like to play for. Apparently he is pushing the wolves to try and deal with the suns in a package that would NOT include amare. I understand him wanting to play with argueably the best PG in the league, and the fact they have been good friends for a few years makes even more sense, but wanting to stay in the west is kind of ballsy if you ask me in his position at this time in his career. The west is so much better than the east, and I really think his best shot for a title is by going to a good east team and trying that way.

I just hope it ends up well for him, as he has been a class act since the beginning and the guy plays his heart out night in and night out. Sometimes I wish people like him could somehow be rewarded for all their efforts, especially when bitches like john salley have multiple rings and nowhere close to the same drive or talent .